Jump to content

Not a fan of vista sorry.


A.T.M
 Share

Recommended Posts

I bought a new dell laptop and windows vista came with it inclusive.

It was slow, it crashed, it was diffcult to navigate.

I ended up taking vista off and putting windows XP on and its all so much better.

Not a fan of Vista sorry. Windows XP all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You're not alone. I work for a fairly large company who used to manufacture computers under their own brand name. They've since sold that part of the business, and now buy their computers from the company they sold the business to. The laptop in front of me is labelled "Windows Vista Basic", but it was delivered to me with XP installed. Apparently all of this company's internally developed browser applications won't work with Internet Explorer 7. I suspect this might be more common than many of us are aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well i use both xp and vista on two different laptops they both look and run the same i have only one problem with vista since installing and it was solved with a temp fix i hope for now the rest is has been hacked and regedit to hell but still meet NSA security standards for secure computing so i really can't complain. i hope to come up with a guide over my break if i find time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The biggest weakness of vista I feel is the harder to use gui, its more clicks to do everything and different enough in that you have to learn the os. The control panel is a right mess compared to XP.

In addition it runs a lot slower on equal hardware to XP with games running at around half speed, aero which technically should be faster than the old gdi is actually slower when I use a gfx card with high aero rating I hope this is a short term issue and will improve with better drivers in the future.

I feel if vista added UAC, didnt have any drm, no gui changes (aero is ok I mean the gui layout changes explorer, hidden menus etc.) then people would have been more satisfied however I expect MS were trying to justify the price tag so changed things round so it looks different enough that people feel more has changed to justify the expense.

UAC I actually feel overall is a good idea, for myself the default mode is a nuisance (i set to auto elevate but leaving uac enabled) but for the vast majority of people who are noobs uac is a benefit and is needed.

Oh to add superfetch I got no idea what MS were thinking when they were developing this feature but its way overboard in what it does, prefetch was a good idea, caching everything into free ram is a good idea as long as its passive. But superfetch is a bad idea thrashing the hd for long periods on every bootup making everything in general slower whilst its working.

Edited by Chrysalis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this thread even exists - ATM, you created a thread just to say "I don't like Vista"? Thanks for sharing. You're a model of contribution. <rolls eyes> (maybe that was too harsh)

That said, I just got back from visiting my parents for Christmas. Last year I built them a computer and put Vista Home Premium (32-bit) on it. I have a computer with Ultimate (32-bit) with similar specs. Core2Duo, 2gb DDR2-800, discrete GPU, 7200rpm SATA HDD... My GPU is a lot faster (8800GTS vs. 7600GT) and my CPU is a little faster (2.975 vs. 2.4) but their HDD is a little newer (Seagate 7200.10 750gb vs. 7200.9 200gb). Yet their computer runs terribly! The HDD never stops thrashing and the system is very unresponsive relatively frequently. They run several programs all the time: Windows Mail, Kaspersky Anti-virus, and a weather station monitoring program. Their copy of Vista is not Vlited. Mine is vlited relatively extensively and the only program I run all the time is Gmail notifier. Despite my HDD being slower, my system runs like a champ with no HDD thrashing. The system is almost never unresponsive and boots rights up to a usable desktop in less than 30 seconds. My folks computer takes about a minute to reach the desktop, but remains unusable for another minute.

I didn't write this to ask for advice on making my parent's computer run faster. I wrote this to point out the major difference between our experience with Vista: Vlite. It's fitting, of course, to write this here. Before you give up on Vista because it's too slow: do yourself a favor and vlite it. It makes all the difference in the world. MS really needs to consider adding a way to customize the installation of Windows like they do with Office and like nearly every other software company on the planet does... The Vista kernel actually seems to be significantly faster than the XP kernel, but there is too much stuff riding on top of it. Clear out that stuff and it runs beautifully; with the exception of file transfers. God only knows why they can't get that right...

Maybe you skipped all of that just to read the last line? Here's all you need to know: try Vlite before you give up on Vista.

EDIT: I just realized I managed, somehow, to leave the Vlite forum and end up in the Vista forum. Not sure how that happened, but at least your post makes a *little* more sense now, ATM.

Edited by DrewWinters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, why wasting your precious time here to guts it out?

There is one thing what people forget all:

Windows Vista should work on every x86 structure system and there are many, many kind of configurations. Not for every system is a sollution possible. Microsoft is not a real wizzard!

For the most system it should work fine and one kind of commentairy is the fact only the people who dislike it will bring up the mass to a negative view of Vista's real power. The millions of people where Vista works fine won't reply and neither they make a rush in the media. That balance is everything but fair. Can you understand it?

It is not personally, but this is the same compliement as in 2001 (release of XP). Hot discussions. Should I stick with Windows 2000 or should I consider an upgrade?

The way of Microsoft is simple but fair and I hope you understand it properly ;)

Alpha's: First test of OS. Reasonable stable, but still not good enough for presentation.

Beta's: Second fase. more stable, far faster and more functions. The bugs rapported in the Alpha where fixed.

Release Candidates: Nearly finished and all functions are now implemented and can't be changed. Read the name well, twice.

RTM: Retail To Manufactor (the store you bought it). This version is ready for the mass, but far from errorfree. Most bugs could only be rapported when the mass use it. That are these updates that takes lot's of time and an reboot as last.

Exacly the path Windows XP has walked ;)

Edited by Extravert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a new dell laptop and windows vista came with it inclusive.

It was slow, it crashed, it was diffcult to navigate.

I ended up taking vista off and putting windows XP on and its all so much better.

Not a fan of Vista sorry. Windows XP all the way.

:wacko:

Hmm, that's funny. I have three PCs running Vista and my new laptop has the lowest specs. AMD Turion 1.8 Ghz, 5200rpm hard drive, integrated video card, 2MB DDR2 memory. It runs just fine, like the rest of my computers. I'm sure if I replaced the HD with a 7200 RPM that would speed things up a bit but I use my laptop for school and work so I don't need blazing speed like I do on my gaming PC. I will admit I wiped the drive the minute I got it. They just put too much junk on PC these days. So you think it's difficult to navigate? I guess that's the same thing I thought when I went from 98, to ME, to XP, to Vista. But I actually spent more than 10 minutes poking around the new OS and realized that MS wasn't making a XP clone. As far as speed I don't see much of a difference even on my gaming rig. Of course, I'm not going to sit there and run every benchmark to see if I dropped 5 FPS. If I can't notice the difference just by playing it's not worth mentioning that it's slower. I did disable the search and indexing on my gaming PC because that does make the PC run slower at first while it sorts things out. But again that all stops once it's done. I leave it on for my laptop and wife's computer, again not gaming there.

If I bought a new laptop from Dell and it crashed I wouldn't replace the OS, I would return the thing. Sounds like your not willing to move on to new things or you've listened to too much XP is faster than Vista ramble. Like the previous poster said, "They said the same thing about XP when it came out." Get over it. You remind me of my 12 year old cocker spaniel; Sam. When I move the furniture in the house she gets upset for a day or two because things aren't like there were before. Oh my god what will we do? Go back, go back.. or maybe try Linux or Macintosh X.

Like my 16 year old daughter says, "Whatever!"

:}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why this thread even exists - ATM, you created a thread just to say "I don't like Vista"? Thanks for sharing. You're a model of contribution. <rolls eyes> (maybe that was too harsh)

That said, I just got back from visiting my parents for Christmas. Last year I built them a computer and put Vista Home Premium (32-bit) on it. I have a computer with Ultimate (32-bit) with similar specs. Core2Duo, 2gb DDR2-800, discrete GPU, 7200rpm SATA HDD... My GPU is a lot faster (8800GTS vs. 7600GT) and my CPU is a little faster (2.975 vs. 2.4) but their HDD is a little newer (Seagate 7200.10 750gb vs. 7200.9 200gb). Yet their computer runs terribly! The HDD never stops thrashing and the system is very unresponsive relatively frequently. They run several programs all the time: Windows Mail, Kaspersky Anti-virus, and a weather station monitoring program. Their copy of Vista is not Vlited. Mine is vlited relatively extensively and the only program I run all the time is Gmail notifier. Despite my HDD being slower, my system runs like a champ with no HDD thrashing. The system is almost never unresponsive and boots rights up to a usable desktop in less than 30 seconds. My folks computer takes about a minute to reach the desktop, but remains unusable for another minute.

I didn't write this to ask for advice on making my parent's computer run faster. I wrote this to point out the major difference between our experience with Vista: Vlite. It's fitting, of course, to write this here. Before you give up on Vista because it's too slow: do yourself a favor and vlite it. It makes all the difference in the world. MS really needs to consider adding a way to customize the installation of Windows like they do with Office and like nearly every other software company on the planet does... The Vista kernel actually seems to be significantly faster than the XP kernel, but there is too much stuff riding on top of it. Clear out that stuff and it runs beautifully; with the exception of file transfers. God only knows why they can't get that right...

Maybe you skipped all of that just to read the last line? Here's all you need to know: try Vlite before you give up on Vista.

EDIT: I just realized I managed, somehow, to leave the Vlite forum and end up in the Vista forum. Not sure how that happened, but at least your post makes a *little* more sense now, ATM.

I should try and Vlite my gaming rig to see how much of a difference it would make. But then again like I said before, I don't see these major slowdowns that people are talking about. My gaming PC runs everything just fine, I have no complaints. I'm not sure re-loading the OS again would be worth the trouble.

Gaming PC specs:

Watercooled AMD 185 opteron overclocked to 3.2 Ghz, Nvidia GTS OC 8800 380 MB, 2GB DDR400 ram (it's even old and it runs great), RAID 0

I have no problems running Hellgate London, BIOSPHERE, Call of Duty 4, and Medal of Honor Airborne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exacly the path Windows XP has walked

I don't like blinking harddisk led without my activitiy

Vista directly using my machine.What can i do about that?

I do believe that's the indexing doing it's thing so it can find "searches" faster. If you disable indexing and windows search you won't see vista using the disk so much. At the same time it may be installing updates or defragging the drive. Why are people so upset about their machine talking to MS? In my experience paranoid people are paranoid because they have something to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry but why should anyone go to the trouble of using vlite? if the OS doesnt work out of the box to the standard a user expects then i dont think they should use it, unless there is some clear advantage.

The OS works fine but if you are running minimum specs and want better performance then you could vlite it (I guess I've never done it) and remove the items that take up additional resources that you will never use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...